Balanced, yes, but I find it really unfair to the "outer" schools. Basically the newest 4 teams to the conference plus Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa - essentially the rejects division. Traveling would be miserable for those teams.

But OTOH it would preserve all rivalries within the divisions. By doing so, this would allow for more games against teams in the other division. And while travel would be long for half of the intradivision games, the others would be relatively close.

Agree, I just think that we would be singing a different tune if Michigan was geographically alligned in the "outer" division. I want the divisions to be set up for sustainability. I feel like the popular suggestion on this board will just end up being redone in the future.

But there are benefits to the schools in the Outer division, too. The four western schools get guaranteed East Coast exposure every year, which they wouldn't get in an East-West split. For recruiting, that's a big deal.

I'm wondering if a stacked Eastern division is better. Recruits know they are guaranteed a number of big games each year. Also, playing at Maryland and Rutgers every other year probalbly helps recruiting.

I think the odds of winning the division are a bit lower in the East/West format, but it also makes for a great number of big games and might help recruiting in some hotbed areas. I'm going east-west.

Yeah, I agree. Inner-Outer seems to be the most competitively-balanced. Do schools care about travel distance? I'm sure Rutgers would probably get tired of having to travel to Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota every year.

East West sounds the best as far as division names go, but teams rewritinging their preferred historic rivalries for the sake of division names is......aww hell, anything to get rid of Ledgers and Leadins.

I voted for East/West, because it seems more realistic than Inner/Outer - though I'd take Inner/Outer in a heartbeat. It does seem to be the most balanced and for our division, anyway, the geography would be great.

The only upside of the old v. new alignment would be that MSU and OSU would be in our division. As much as I despise the LIttle Brotherness of so many Spartans I know, I do think they are our second biggest rival and should be in our division. But with that said, I would rather have them in the other division than OSU.

I voted for East/West. I think inner/outer would be better for Michigan (and everyone else in the "inner" division that never has to travel very far), but I think East/West is a better move from a conference standpoint, avoiding traveling between the East coast and Nebraska as much as possible.

I also don't think the competitive balance is too bad in East/West, especially if Penn State and MSU fall off a bit as expected in the coming years, and extra especially if Wisconsin can keep going as a perrenial conference contender.

The fall sports fly to farther locations, so it doesn't make that big of a difference. No other sports besides football has divisions so they have to drive the distance anyways. I would rather see Michigan play traditional Big Ten schools rather than Rutgers and Maryland. To hell with Nebraska and their Ohio State coach.

UofM-St.Louis... how do you not want the inner-outer?! I live in St Louis too. Do you have any clue how much this would potentially save on travel expenses for us? It would mean 4 out of the 7 teams would be roughly within a 4 and a half hour radius of StL. Why?

I voted for "Inner-Outer" (although I first thought or orbital diagrams when I saw this - Rutgers' orbit is very eccentric and it could escape the conference at apogee from the inner conference) as well. The East-West arrangement, to me, seems a little top-heavy in the East and a little bottom-loaded in the West, if you will. The Inner-Outer arrangement disperses the good and "meh" better.

With this you would rotate each year the divisions that play each other. (like the NFL), with one protected rivalry game.For the championship, Top teams from each division would advance, and there would be a four team playoff for the Big Ten championship.

Most of you will probably hate this, but I think it would be pretty sweet.

Agree, moving forward, as long as the B1G maintains an 8 game conference schedule, as long as Michigan and OSU are in different divisions, they are at a significant strength of schedule disadvantage due to having to play eachother every year, while their divisional rivals play Michigan/OSU 2 out of every 12 years.

Nebraska, MSU played OSU this year. Yes the are not locked to playing them every year, but we dont have to play Wisconsin every year, like Nebraska. They are on our schedule, who cares who they play just beat them.

Nebraska doesn't play Wisconsin every year. Their protected game is PSU. If PSU craters because of the sanctions, then we're talking about a serious schedule imbalance within our own division. It's better to just dispense with the protected games altogether.

Why would it be so terrible to see, Michigan vs. OSU play each other in back to back weeks. For example, we lose to them, we get a chance to redeem ourselves. We win, we get another chance to kick their ass.

And what if we win the Game, only to lose the rematch? Then the first game becomes meaningless.

The Game always has been, and always should be, a once-a-year thing. The SEC, Big 12 and Pac-12 understand this. They don't make Alabama-Auburn, Florida-Georgia, Texas-OU, USC-UCLA, et al. play each other twice.

Competitively Inner and Outer is best now, but it really doesn't work. Why? The travel distances for Maryland, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Rutgers fans would be ridiculous. While we may not care about them, you need their support for realignment. Thus, I voted East-West.

Bo Pelini and Jerry Kill would gladly trade the shorter travel distances in a West division for guaranteed East Coast visits every year. The West division could be problematic from a recruiting standpoint, just as the Big 12 North became.

What about the travel distance now for Nebraska fans? The travel to Michigan and Michigan St. are no picnic -- you're definitely flying. And what about the distance between divisional opponents Penn St - Wisconsin. Or Wisconsin - OSU. Or Minnesota - Michigan. Or Minnesota - Michigan St. These are all really long drives as it is. I don't think knocking the inside-outside lineup due to geography holds much weight compared to what we already have now.

What is it with the idiots in the comments on the B1G site blabbering about divisional equality? It isn't sustainable over the long term. Hell it wasn't sustainable over the short term. This subject gets me all pissed off and fired up. As long as they can put Michign and Ohio in the same division and change the hokey names, I'll consider it a victory.

After scanning some other Big Ten blogs, it doesn't seem like inner/outer is very popular anywhere else. There are jokes about the layout and how "ridiculous" the idea is for inner/outer. I scanned Iowa, OSU, and Nebrask sites, so this wasn't comprehensive by any means, but some of those sites prefer the +1 over inner/outer which seems ludicrous.

Not true. Many fanbases have a beef. Wisconsin fans hate being separated from Minnesota and Iowa, and vice versa. Illinois fans hate being separated from their "archrival" Michigan, not to mention Northwestern. PSU fans want to be in the same division as Michigan (the scars from that nine-game winning streak run deep in that fanbase). Nebraska is concerned about a future lack of exposure in Pennsylvania and Ohio, since they won't visit there often as it stands.

Really, the only schools that are content with the current setup are the ones that don't really care about football - Indiana and Purdue.

There is no way that Michigan and Ohio should ever be in the same division.

There are two traditions for Michigan and Ohio.

1) They play in the last game of the year every year in the biggest rivalry in college sports.

2) They usually play for the B10 championship and Rose Bowl every year.

Michigan and Ohio must have a chance to play in the B1G championship game every year. Keep their annual game but keep them is separate divisions.

Who really cares about having back to back games. Everyone predicted that would happen every year but it hasn't yet and my not happen that often with all the new teams. Even if it did, everybody would love to see the rematch just like we wanted to see it in 2007.

BUT If they are in the same division they will never again play for the B10 championship ...NEVER! And that would be a tragedy.

Michigan and Ohio have a tradition of playing once a year, on each other's home field. They have never played on a neutral field. They have never played a rematch in the same year. If we play them in a domed stadium in Indianapolis, it won't be keeping with tradition at all. I don't think some people can grasp just how weird that will be until it happens.

Conference title games are a joke, a money grab played in mostly empty stadiums with no students present. They feel like exhibition games. The Game can only go down in prestige by being associated with Lucas Oil Stadium. Keep it once a year. Winner wins the division.

if they played twice and the second game was at a neutral spot. That means they still play home and home but home field advantage no longer disproportionately determines the chance for the Rose Bowl. Think of all the years we would have loved a rematch on neutral turf.

your glass is half empty. In fact the biggest reason to not have a rematch I've read on this site is "what if we lose" and "I don't want to play those guys twice." I doubt the players feel that way. Sure it's a tougher road. There is nothing wrong with that.

The biggest problems are it devalues the one game that makes it a one game season with a year's bragging rights; and that the road is unfair in not between Michigan and Ohio State, but between Michigan (and Ohio) and its division rivals. Nebraska playing PSU, MSU playing Indiana, and Iowa Purdue every yer, while we play each other.

It's not a what of we lose thing to me. It's a what if the first game...which is the game...ends up worthless. Rematch in the big ten title game and the other team wins to get a split. Who gets bragging rights? The team who won the second game? That's awful.

...all those years that were decided by the Big Ten ADs. So would have Woody. Decide it on the field. Don't make Michigan vs Ohio a playoff game.

Everyone would have liked a rematch in 2006 on neutral turf.

I agree that they should play home and home every year. But they should also have the "chance" to play for the title on neutral turf as well.

Imagine if you were on the team.

Your goals are:

1A) Win the Big10

1B) Beat Ohio

If it's 1971 or 2006 and both teams are undefeated going into their final game, does Bo, Lloyd or Hoke want to play in both games? Should both teams play in both games (assuming no one else is undefeated)? Absolutely.

Here is a important point. You always want the option to decide the championship on the field. You don't want the championship taken out of your hands and decided by a committee or by poorly set up divisions (with the two best teams in the same division). If the best two teams are Ohio and Michigan (which wont occur as often going forward) they can only decide it on the field if they are in different divisions. For all those that don't want to face Ohio twice I guarantee you the team and coach would disagree. There is no question that the players would want to play the best team twice if they had to, the players would want to decide it on the field.

They set the whole season up to be a one game season that was decided on the last fall game of the year. Not one that was played completely meaninglessly, only to be followed up by another one that meant something.

The years you mention are years Michigan would have liked a rematch. But not ones where Ohio State would have. Just like you ignored years like '97 where Michigan wouldn't have. The championship had already been decided on the field. You didn't need to play twice to decide it. If you split, how does that decide anything? Why is winning the second more important than a week earlier? Different divisions keeps them fom deciding it on the field, not the same. Unless you're suggesting best of three.

So stop talking about what players and coaches would want when you don't have a clue. In 2006 when there was a chance or a rematch you say that all those coaches would want, you know what Tressel did? He abstained from the vote. He didn't want to play Michigan again, but didn't want to look like he was scared.

Wouldn't losing the one and only game be deciding it on the field? Yes it sucks that we didn't win in those years, but osu won and they earned the bragging rights for those years. We won in 95 and 96 when the idiots overlooked us. Why would you want to play them again if you already beat them once the week before? What would be the point?

I don't understand this thinking. How can you not see how the rivalry has already been compromised by the fact that we're in separate divisions? When OSU played MSU and Nebraska, we were obligated to root for them to help us get an advantage in the division race. When we played OSU, the game couldn't have resolved anything even if they hadn't been ineligible - they would have already clinched their division, and we would have already been eliminated from ours.

This year the game that cost us the division title was Nebraska, not OSU. As long as we are in separate divisions from OSU, it will no longer be the absolute must-win on the schedule, as far as winning the conference goes. Nebraska will be that game. Even if it does happen that the OSU game will decide the division race, we still will really be competing against Nebraska. OSU will just happen to be the final team we play, that we need to beat to get a leg up on the Huskers.

As it stands, the Game (the on-campus version of it) will never be a winner-take-all type of thing again, because we'll be competing in rival divisions. The only way we can get a winner-take-all matchup is if we play in the BTCG. But that won't happen often, and even when it does, it won't be as satisfying when it's a replay of a game played one week earlier. I predict that if/when we do meet in the title game, there will be a huge outcry as everyone will recognize how ridiculous it is to ask the two teams to play on back to back weeks.

Well point 1 might not continue to happen if they are in different divisions and have a rematch the next week for the rose bowl. If they are going to play eachother 2 weeks in a row and the last game of the season is essentially meaningless because both are a lock, why throw it all on the field the first game? If this became the case, michigan-ohio would get moved to october so there is a point to the game rendering tradition bunk.

Point 2 is whoever wins The Game is going to play the other division for the Rose Bowl. The Game still means everything. Plus do you really want to have to beat Ohio twice to get to the rose bowl?. Read earlier coments on how our guaranteed crossover against ohio gives both of us disadvantages.

How about the NCAA just ditch conference title games (and thus, divisions)? (What's so horrible about shared conference championships?) If an NCAA playoff is as lucrative as they think, it could make up the difference.

This is what I've been saying! Now that there are more teams in a division the championship game is basically worthless anyway. PLUS who wants to spend money to travel from whatever state they're from to Indianapolis one week plus tickets and then spend money for travel and tickets to Pasadena/playoff games? It makes no sense. It was full the first year for the sparty and wisconsin game, but this year the excitement wore off and even one of the best travelling fanbases in the country (nebraska) who figured they'd be going to pasadena at the time, said why the hell would we want to buy tickets for this game and pasadena?

But you have to ask...who are the 2 new teams if they go to 16? ND is the only me that works in the divisions because you could add thm in the inner or the west and then add your other east squad. Two east tens screws up inner-outer. You could add them to east and send Indy to the west, but that's an ugly east division. And it doesn't look like any west teams are on the radar.

It's crazy to force constant travel between Rutgers and Nebraska more than once every other year...but Rutgers to anywhere is far and will require a plane ride in most instances. For football only, this makes sense.

well hey, the fans of a whole didn't ask for Rutgers and Mayland to join. They chose so based on financial incentives and should deal with it accordingly. Blame the conference and hope the B1G deals with it appropriately (which I have my doubts about).

At least 2 of the 3 options have UM and OSU in the same division. The key is that we vote +1 as our third choice (I wish they had 10 options so I could vote +1 10th). Vote early and often!

The bad news is the number of comments on the BTN site from other B1G fans who think that +1 is the way to go.

Ultimately though, I do not trust the B1G to actually listen to the fans. Instead, the suits will pick a fourth choice for realignment that simultaneously ruins all rivalries and results in the farthest total travel for every fanbase. They also will replace Leaders and Legends with WOW and COOL and play the B1G championship game in Tokyo to get the Asian markets. Plus, they will have an animated rapping dog named B1GGIE, who will also appear in mascot form at all B1G games singing, "I love it when you call me B1G conference..."